Message from @Doctor Anon
Discord ID: 515295410093555721
In that case, we would have monarchies.
I disagree
Monarchies are almost never concerned about their nation
I would say quite the opposite.
Nationalism is incompatible with monarchies
Nationalism did not exist during the age of monarchs
This is history
Monarchies are probably the MOST concerned for the long term welfare of citizens.
You need a strong, but empathetic, temporary dictatorship
Why not a permanent monarch?
Or an oligarchy of 3-4
Have you ever read Hans-Hermann Hoppe?
Because monarchies are prone to hereditary corruption
My ideal monarchy would be a non hereditary internally elected one
Hereditary rule is precisely why monarchies is so effective and efficient.
With heavy requirements
Hereditary rule is disgusting
What do you think would happen in America with a parliament
It encourages monarchs (unlike democrats, who only worry about elections) to invest in the future of the country.
@WEBENGi we have a parliament dipshit
They're not that different
Just different titles
And the upper chamber is elected as well
Hereditary rule is the only insurance that rulers will care about the future.
There are distinct differences.
@MinecraftMemer it's also prone to low IQ leaders
And inbreeding
@WEBENGi not so major they are unrecognizable ftomt each other
And in that case, they would have their nation (i.e. property) lose value.
And we would be dominated by smart, competent leaders.
Monarchies are just a no go for me anymore
I used to be a monarchist
Owned /mg/ Monarchist General
But the idea behind them, that nations are private property for an single individual, is much better than democracies.
Dictatorship is superior
Dictators are not concerned about the nation after they die like hereditary monarchs are.
Most are
They want the next dictator to keep the nation alive
Is there a solid incentive like hereditary monarchies?
Look at N.Korea